tv [untitled] July 21, 2010 9:01pm-9:31pm PST
>> lawrence kornfield with the building department. i am trying to put it together. it is not entirely clear immediately to me. i can sit and look at it for another minute. with the project sponsor assist? >> structurally, we are only interested in the seating of the 2by 10. many times, you will see a 1 by 12 has been used to bring something into code as far as insulation. the roof can terminate at the wall down to a s by 4, 2 by 6, 2
by 8, and it is not our intention to change this out of the house. the stained-glass windows will remain. that is our home. that is our house. we have no intention of changing any of the detail on there. it is very simple. the piece that sits on the wall plate is all you are structurally concerned about. anything after that can be ripped down to a 2 by 4. commissioner garcia: -- vice president goh: that makes sense. i am not seeing it on the drawings. it could be that i am looking at the roof of the dormer. can you tell me which page you are looking at? >> i am looking at three and a detail on two. if you look at it again, structurally the rafter will terminate on the wall plate.
any form of ornate detail can be added after the fact. it will be purely non structural and purely to keep it craftsman style. commissioner garcia: -- vice president goh: does that show the rafter terminating at the exterior wall? >> no. you are actually seeing the growth below the dormer. vice president goh: it is the roof below the dormer that has the rafter tales. >> correct. the rafter tale is not shown on that detail. it will be purely cosmetic. it is not included on the detail. one of the things is that the existing laughter tails -- rafter tales, i would say 60% are completely rotted out. even if we just went with a roofing permit, there would have
to be addressed with the shooting of the roof and the dry rot -- the sheeting of the roof and the dry rot. commissioner fung: i will start. i understand the need for the permit holder to get their housing in place for their family, but i am baffled how, when i look it does permit set, it is contrary to a lot of my
experience with both the planning and building department in terms of scope and scale. it is also -- i am not 100% sure what the impact of what is being proposed. if you look at the intent, and it is hard to tell what has been done with permit or without a permit, the intent of the permit holder is legitimate. it is utilizing certain construction techniques to capture the attic space as a livable space, which is why the dormers are being placed in there to create the appropriate height for livable space. but it is hard to tell what happens to the ceiling, the
original ceiling of the building that was below the attic space, and what framing would have been required to upgrade that to become the floor. it is clear that the existing roof in its entirety is gone. the framing plan shows entirely new framing around the entire roof outside of the dormers, although the note of adding plywood sheeting is scratched out. that is why i knew there was something up there on top of the new roof. so i am not sure that i would buy that this project is not -- it does not need to have some level of notice. i am going to also require that
the department -- i need to see the permit history on this. i remain undecided. vice president goh: i agree with that. it was alleged the planning department did not see adjustments to the plans. i do not know what that means in terms of what they did review and what they did over the counter. i was struck by doing and on the fly over the counter historic evaluation on a building like this. that is definitely a contributor if not more. the historic features were being removed and it did not seen that was addressed in the plans to show those things were removed. the other comment i had was about what areas were legal, were to be legalized.
i think that commissioner fung 's comment -- the existing roof to be gone -- is again shocking to me in an over-the-counter evaluation type situation. commissioner hwang: i think we are all better if this family can move back into the house sooner or later, but there are still question marks on the historic review or what is actually looks like from the outside. i think my concerns over the
foundation were addressed. i think mr. kornfield for walking me through the plans. to give the neighbors some comfort we must know what is missing in these plans. i do not want to cause undue delay. i hear you that you are under financial distress. i am sure the appellate does not want you under more financial distress. but there does seem to be ambiguity as to what this looks like any impact on the roof. i do not know if a permit history solves this. i do not know if it will provide any clarity. -- president peterson: i am not sure if that is a solution entirely. commissioner fung: madam president, i traditionally do
not reflect on aesthetics of many of the projects in front of us. the way these dormers fit within the existing building is esthetically not very desirable. it does not create the space they need for it to be habitable, but it is not a very sensitive solution architecturally. president peterson: just looking through the photos, it did appear that the addition next door would just create a larger house. it might have been more -- i do not know how to put it. i cannot necessarily tell -- i
withdraw my comments. commissioner fung: you could not tell it was an addition? i could. president peterson: i could tell it was an addition, but i was thinking -- i wanted to use the word more sensitive, but that is a term of art i do not quite know how to use. as opposed to the kind of wing bombers reversing. -- wing dormers we were seeing. do you have a suggestion where we could go here? commissioner fung: i would like to see more from the departments on the permit history. >> you are suggesting a continuance? commissioner fung: i am. >> two other commissioners have comments? commissioner garcia:
commissioner hwang, did you want to go? commissioner hwang: my main concern here is the financial strain and the fact that these nov's were due to complaints. this is a family that is trying to fix their house. at the complaints of the appellant, notwithstanding the fact that it is really hard to tell exactly what this is going to look like, i think there should have been a different level of review on notice. but i am not inclined to continue. in fact, i am inclined to let
the permit proceed. the economic issues are really pressing here. this was done because there were required to do them. the department has weighed in on them. i feel comfortable with that. commissioner garcia: i at first had thought that some of this was over the counter because there were life safety issues. i cannot claim to know enough or to have enough experience to know whether or not it is the regular the way these permits were issued. maybe it is unusual. it might even be a regular. i have no feeling about that. i was a little confused about what are probably incidental issues to most of the members of this board, one of them having to do with the fact that the windows -- the house was not protected. granted, you might not want to
put new windows in, but there are ways to protect the house from the elements that are inexpensive. maybe that was done. the usual motivation for that, the usual reason that kind of thing is brought up, is that someone is trying to have a demolition and they have let the has deteriorated so they can demonstrate that these issues will come up if they do not get a demo permit. it is well known. it has been recorded for years. i do not see that as the issue. it does not seem as though this is headed for "may i demo this building." i may prove to be wrong. i am very taken that he tried to not invest too heavily in the motions of the case -- the emotions of the case that
someone gets into for various reasons. but that is almost impossible. i was very taken with mrs. galvin's testimony, picturing a family and the hardships they have had. i do not know what the will of this board is, but it seemed to me, and i am happy to be corrected, that one of the most pressing things that has to be done would have to do with capping that foundation. i do not know if that is accurate, but it seemed to me very few things could proceed without that. to have that done is not going to affect the way the building is going to look. to know the permit history probably will not affect whether or not we should try to prevent this house from continuing to spin. so if we do not reach some solution that allows this family to start work on this
house and protect their very real financial interest, then i am probably not going to vote to overturn. we will see where that lands. or even vote for a continuance. president peterson: can separate out parts of the permit? is it all or nothing? >> you could uphold the permit on the condition that only a certain scope of work could be allowed. commissioner garcia: i don't even know that what i said is correct or accurate. did i say something that was inaccurate having to do with the fact that one of the primary things that would have to be done on this particular building would be to take care of the foundation? >> that seems to be the case,
reviewing the case and the plans. it seems to be almost the driving force of this project. commissioner garcia: it would be for the other commissioners to weigh in on whether or not the problems with these particular permits would warrant them -- would cause them to not want that particular work to continue. >> may i make a comment about over-the-counter permit review? we have, in the last year or so, a year and a little bit more, made a conscious and deliberate determination that we will try to issue as many permits as we can over the counter, giving them proper review. we opened a new over-the-counter permit floor, staff at full time. almost any permit that does not require a 311 notice will be issued over the counter, even if it requires historic planning
review. people have to carry them down to the first floor. we go way out of our way to do that. i do not think there is any special treatment given in a place like this, even though it is a large and more complicated project. it fits within the scope of what we are now trying to do to expedite the issuance of permits. commissioner hwang: how does one have a proper analysis of historic review over the counter? >> i do not do the historic review. i am in planning. commissioner fung: maybe my experience with the department is out of date. >> things have changed recently, sir. >> in terms of preservation, whether the existing building is a resource or potential resource or has been identified in a particular survey, which in this case it has been -- if the
project proposed to increase the floor area, say by adding a new third floor, there would be an extensive preservation review in terms of environmental review and a request for historic resource evaluation. typically, what we recommend is the installation of dormers, which will be set back at least 15 feet from the front and the minimally visible from the public right of way. that is the standard solution to avoid extensive mixed level review, which potentially could cost between $5,000 to $15,000 additional. these are typically reviewed over the counter as long as it does not trigger notification requirements. they are approved over the counter. we perform a plan check. we have a checklist we must complete before approving the application. president peterson: you have the 15 foot setback on the dormer. >> the bomber is set back 16
feet. -- the dormer is set back 16 feet. that is the smallest dormer they have. vice president goh: on that review, you would not look at rafter tales? >> would look at the elevation. there is no indication on the plans that we reviewed that show any change on the pitch of the roof or any detail on the roof. vice president goh: the detailed drawing of the rafter beans did and at the wall. >> so then we refer back to elevation. elevation shows us what the final product is going to look like. it is identical to the existing. vice president goh: you would not expect to see those rafter tails shown in that detail even if there were purely cosmetic? >> we do not typically review details in that detailing as far as the roof is being constructed. we rely on the building department. we look at the elevation.
are there any changes in terms of pitch? in this particular instance, there was not any. if we may, may i suggest that if the board is deciding to go in a certain direction you can add a condition to make sure the detailing of the rafter tales be shown on subsequent plans. >> just to point out on the proposed plan, as was just pointed out, the proposed elevation shows some details of rafter tales, but i would agree if it was the direction of the board to approve a permit you might specifically note that as a requirement so it does not get overlooked.
henke. -- thank you. vice president goh: i would be amenable to a condition of that. would you like to address the permit history issue, commissioner? commissioner fung: i will make a motion. i am going to move to continue this. what is the earliest we can take this back on? commissioner garcia: the movement for continuance? >> we have to meetings in august. there are both full calendars. commissioner goh will be absent on the august 11 date. those are the earliest meetings coming up. commissioner garcia: what is my execution date? >> your execution date --
commissioner garcia: am i good through august? >> you should be good to august. his term has expired. he is sitting on a 60-day holdover. . he has been nominated for reappointment but the process has not yet taken place. commissioner garcia: before you call the roll, i will not support a continuance unless there are provisions to allow the permit holder to continue to start the work having to do with the foundation. commissioner fung: i do not know if you can bifurcate that. commissioner garcia: then i am not going to support the continuance. i thought we had done that in the past. commissioner fung: we have allowed the protection of property against wind and rain to continue. there are certain life safety
things we have allowed to continue. those can be done by the department. the authorities. commissioner garcia: unless i have that assurance, i do not intend to support a continuance. commissioner fung: well, let me continue with the motion anyway. i am going to move this continues to august 18. president peterson: call the roll on that, please. >> the motion is to continue to august. that will allow the retrieval of additional documents. commissioner fung: the planning and building department. specifically, the permit history. and no additional briefings. >> on that motion to continue with those, vice president goh?
who says that? everyone. announcer: imagine if who you are were used as an insult. >> cents and cisco's buses and trains serve many writers -- san francisco buses and trains serve many riders. the need to be sure they can get off at their intended stop. the digital voice announcement system, which announces upcoming
stops, can help these low vision riders know where they are, but only if set properly. >> it is a wonderful piece of technology, but in practice, it is a little bit more tricky. oftentimes, i find that the automatic announcement system is turned off or turned down so low that i'm unable to hear it, or it is turned up so high that the sound is distorted. >> most of the time, it does not ever seemed to be on. or is it is, it is a really quiet. occasionally, it is so loud that it is distorted. >> driver, may i have california st., please? >> no problem. >> whenever the announcement system does not work properly and a driver does not call out the stops, and i'm totally lost as to where i am. the announcement system calls out the stops, but to help the customer, i caught the
destination, transfer points, and requested stops. and it is the law. >> i use the p a system to make sure everyone on the bus here is my announcements. >> i have had both experiences with the loudness and the to stop for the announcements. you are never going to have it exactly balanced for every trip because your level of noise changes. the announcement system ranges from 1 to 10. 10 would be too loud, a little distorted. eight is a good number. not too loud, but loud enough for everyone to hear and understand what is going on. >> i think bus drivers might not be aware of the fact that if you let a visually impaired person off at the wrong stop, number one, they may be absolutely unfamiliar with the area they are in. >> the driver overshot the stock that i wanted. i decided to get off and find my way back, but it was very disorienting, not exactly
understanding how far i was. number 2, it might be a potentially dangerous situation if they do not know the area and are attempting to make crossings that they are unfamiliar with. >> they let me off somewhere else. i had no idea where i was. i missed the stop, and the bus was gone. then, i look around. i tried to find someone to help me, and i cannot find anybody. i would have no way of knowing where i am at. >> [inaudible] i asked why he did not stop when i asked. we did not panic. we do not know where we are. we do not know what is going on. i get over there, and right away, i almost got killed.